Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors King and M Markham.

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 February 2021 were agreed and signed by the Chair.

RESOLVED:

That under the following items, the members of the public and Ward Councillors listed below were granted leave to address the Committee:

N/2020/1482

Diane Monger

Tony Monger

N/2020/1212

Steve Harley

N/2020/1409

Councillor Walker

Councillor Roberts

Nigel Ozier

N/2020/1551

Councillor Russell

N/2020/1568

Paul Enright-King

N/2019/0755

Helen Town

N/2020/1287

Chris Wright

Chris Parr

N/2020/1553

Helen Town

Chris Parr

Councillor Birch declared a personal interest in respect of items 9a and 12c as the ward councillor and advised of no predetermination.

Councillor Bottwood declared a predetermination in respect of item 10e and   a disclosable pecuniary interest in respect of items12a, 12b and 12c as a board member of Northampton Partnership Homes (NPH) and advised that he would leave the meeting while these four items were discussed.

Councillor Cali declared a personal interest in respect of item 9b as the ward councillor and advised of no predetermination.

Councillor Golby declared a predetermination in respect of item 10e and advised that he would leave the meeting for this item.

Councillor Russell declared a predetermination in respect of item 10d and advised that she would be speaking on this item as the ward councillor on behalf of the residents and would leave the meeting whilst the discussion and vote was taking place.

There were none.

Report of DIrector of Planning and Sustainability (copy herewith)

The Interim Development Manager submitted a List of Current Appeals and Inquiries on behalf of the Director of Planning and Sustainability. Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

At the Chair’s invitation, the Interim Development Manager presented the report and explained that the application was for a lawful development certificate for a proposed loft conversion, including installation of front and side dormer windows and chimney. The Interim Development Manager explained that the alterations were permitted development under Classes B and G respectively of the GPDO and therefore a lawful development certificate could be issued.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report.

There were none.

At the Chair’s invitation, the Interim Development Manager presented the report and explained that the application was to install new floodlights (10m in height) to the existing basketball court at The Racecourse. The Interim Development Manager explained that there were residential properties to the south of the site. The proposed application would enhance the three existing basketball courts and the planning department had not received any objections from environmental health subject to the requirement for the lighting to be controlled to be used between 8am and 9pm.

At the Chair’s invitation, Tony Monger addressed the planning committee and expressed his objection to the application as a resident onlooking onto the sports facilities. He explained that there was already enough daylight on site and there was no use during the winter months. He questioned the need for the financial investment and shared residents’ concerns regarding anti-social behaviour and littering.

Members questioned Mr Monger if he had been consulted regarding the application to Sport England for the upgrade of the basketball courts and the application for funding and shared that the installation of lights would be welcomed by residents.  Sport England required this upgrade to the lighting as part of the funding application to upgrade and resurface the basketball courts and improve disabled access.

The Interim Development Manager explained that the lighting should help to ease resident concerns regarding anti-social behaviour as it would illuminate the existing footpath to the rear of the residential properties.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report.

Councillor Lane joined the meeting at this juncture and confirmed he had no declarations of interests.

At the Chair’s invitation, the Principal Planning Officer presented the report and explained the application was for the proposed installation of a gate at the St Michael’s Road end of the alleyway adjacent to 87 St Michael’s Road, and a fixed panel at the Dunster Street end. The Principal Planning Officer explained that this application would restrict access and resolve anti-social behaviour issues following concerns raised by residents. Access was retained from St Michaels Road to allow access to one property which is served off the alleyway. This would be the only property with a key access into the alleyway. The Council’s Conservation Officer had no objection to the scheme as the gates allow views through to appreciate the historic layout, and the Police supported this scheme. 

Members discussed the report and expressed that the installation was welcomed and much needed.

RESOLVED:

That the Application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report.

At this juncture Councillor Kilby – Shaw left the meeting.

At the Chair’s invitation, the Principal Planning Officer presented the report and explained that the application was for outline consent with only access under consideration for the demolition of the existing building on the Howdens site in Brackmills industrial estate. The only change to the access would be the removal of one access point. The Principal Planning Officer advised that the principle of redeveloping the site was supported as the development would regenerate the site and retain an employment use. The amendments to the access were also considered acceptable with no objections from NCC Highways of Highways England. It was advised that a Reserved Matters application would be required with further details of the scheme. Members were pointed to the comments within the addendum.

At the Chair’s invitation, Mr Steve Harley addressed the Planning Committee as the agent acting on behalf of the applicant. He explained that there is a demand for office space in Northampton, and the redevelopment of the vacant employment site would help to regenerate the site, would provide smaller units which are in demand, and would be a sustainable development on brownfield land. It was stated that no objections had been raised from consultees.

Members discussed the application.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE subject to the completion of an S106 Agreement as per the recommendation and for the conditions and reasons as set out in the report and addendum.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report and explained that the application had previously come to the Planning Committee and received approval in principle in October 2020. It was advised that the scheme was identical to the previous approval, and the reason for the re-submission was due to the previous scheme expiring before a S106 could be completed. It was advised that it remained considered that the scheme would be acceptable with regards to design, neighbouring impact and parking. EV charging had increased within this scheme from 4 spaces to 20 which was outlined as an improvement. It was advised that the Environment Agency, Lead Local Flood Authority and Anglian Water all had no objection to the scheme. Members were pointed to the Committee Addendum.

At the Chair’s invitation Councillor Walker addressed the Committee and expressed concerns regarding flooding in Far Cotton and ongoing parking issues. Councillor Roberts then addressed the Committee and echoed the parking and flood concerns in the area. Councillor Roberts expressed her concern that no objections had been raised concerning flooding as she had contacted the Local Flood Authority and they commented that the recent flooding had been very problematic due to the Victorian sewer in the area, which would continue to worsen as large developments are built in Far Cotton. It was further advised that the façade of the existing building should be retained.

At the Chair’s invitation Councillor Roberts addressed the Committee and raised concerns with whether the archaeology of the site had been investigated, the loss of affordable housing, that the existing building should be preserved, that there is insufficient parking, and that the building has gone into ruin since the original consent with anti-social behaviour and fly-tipping.

Next Nigel Ozier, the agent acting on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Planning Committee and assured members that a new flood risk assessment had been carried out and that both the Environment Agency and the Lead Local Flood Authority had no objections. He confirmed that there were conditions relating to flooding. He explained that in terms of parking highways had not posed any objections. The agent advised that it was likely that not all the spaces would be use and 20 EV points would be available. It was advised that the previous approval was a strong material planning consideration, with the parking having already been approved, that EV parking had improved, that the building was not listed and had already had consent to be demolished, and that the redevelopment of the site was needed.

Members asked if the residential parking would be secured. Mr Ozier advised that it would be and could be allocated if there was a demand once built.

Members asked the Principal Planning Officer if waste would be managed properly and if the open spaces would be maintained. The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the maintenance of open space would be negotiated with the section 106 contribution and there was a bin store located on site, and a condition in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10b

At the Chair’s invitation, the Interim Development Manager introduced the report and explained the application was for twelve new industrial units in the existing car park on Suite G6-6A, Moulton Park Business Centre, Redhouse Road. There would be one block of four units and another block of eight smaller units, each with a mezzanine level and overall height of 6.5m. In terms of parking, the Interim Development Manager explained that the proposed development would mean there would be a loss of 125 parking spaces, with 276 parking spaces remaining of which 65 would be for the proposed new units. the Interim Development Manager explained that Highways and Environmental Health had raised no objections to the application. There would also be EV charging points as required by condition 8 for the parking associated with the new development. There was no unacceptable residential impact and it was explained that more information was required regarding security measures under condition 5 due to the open plan nature of the site. Condition 10 required the protection of retained trees on site during construction. The Interim Development Manager concluded that there was also a recommendation for a section 106 to secure for the provision of construction training.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE subject to the completion of an S106 legal agreement as per the recommendation and for the conditions and reasons as set out in the report.

At the Chair’s invitation, the Principal Planning Officer presented the application for the proposed change of use of an existing three-bedroom dwelling to a House in Multiple Occupancy (HMO) for five residents. It was explained that a scheme had been previously approved at Planning Committee for five occupants, and the only change was to the layout which added en-suite bathrooms to four bedrooms. The Principal Planning Officer advised that there is no on-site parking as previously approved, which was considered acceptable due to the sustainable location. The survey of HMOs in the area showed there was only one other within 50m. It was concluded that as the site already had a live permission for five occupants and the amendments improved the scheme though providing en-suites, the recommendation was for approval.

At the Chair’s invitation, Councillor Russell addressed the Planning Committee and expressed her objection on behalf of residents for the intended use as a House in Multiple Occupation. She explained that the application would bring increased noise and waste and pressure in the area for on-street parking.

Councillor Russell left the meeting whilst the application was being debated.

Members asked if a survey had been completed recently to see if there was any unregistered HMOs in the area. The Principal Planning Officer explained that the survey only found one HMO and the assessment does consider unregistered HMOs. The Director of Planning and Sustainability confirmed that the Planning Department relied on a number of external and internal data sources when calculating the percentage.

Members commented that it was a great layout and a vast improvement from the last proposed plan.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and reasons as set out in the report.

Councillor Russell rejoined the meeting.

Councillors Bottwood and Golby left the meeting at this juncture.

At the Chair’s invitation, the Principal Planning Officer presented the report and explained that the application was for the proposed change of use of the five-bedroom dwelling into a five-person house in multiple occupation (HMO). It was reported that there are no other HMOs in a 50m radius of the site and that there were a proliferation of bus stops within easy walking distance, as well as shops at Limehouse Square and other local facilities close to the site, such that the site occupies a sustainable location and on-site parking is not required. The Principal Planning Officer explained that objections relating to noise had been received, but the property would remain in a residential use with no increase in bedrooms such that objections cannot be sustained on these grounds.

At the Chair’s invitation, Paul Enright-King addressed the Planning Committee and expressed his objection to the planning application as a neighbouring resident. He explained that the building was of wooden construction and the property had been insulated with foam cladding. He felt that the site would pose a fire risk with the alarm sounding multiple times a day and the site would create noise pollution as neighbours could hear doors slamming due to poor insulation. Also, he advised there is already parking pressure in the area. 

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and for the reasons set out in the report.

Councillor Golby re-joined the meeting.

At the Chair’s invitation, the Principal Planning Officer presented the report and explained that the application site forms part of a residential development for 21 dwellings approved in 2017. He explained that there had been three lights installed on the development land, with two streetlights next to the new houses and a third situated adjacent to the garden of a neighbouring property, 31 Watering Lane. The Principal Planning Officer showed a luminance plan to the Planning Committee and explained that Environmental Health had assessed the plan and had raised no objections. The Principal Planning Officer explained that a baffle had been fitted to the light to reduce the light into the adjacent garden. The officer recommendation was for the Planning Committee to approve the application subject to a condition to secure the retention of the baffle on the third streetlight.

At the Chair’s invitation, Chris Wright addressed the Planning Committee and expressed his objection to the streetlight which was invasive to his garden. He explained that residents had been consulted regarding the development in Tom’s Close, yet they had not been consulted on the streetlights. He explained that no other residents had a streetlight adjacent to their garden, and the streetlight does not luminate any part of the development as it projects into his garden. Chris shared that a member of his family was a keen astronomer and he was saddened that the streetlight impaired the enjoyment of this hobby.

Next, Chris Parr the major works manager for NPH addressed the Planning Committee and explained that the streetlight had been positioned to give optimum light with minimum light spillage. He explained that in consultation with Building Control a baffle has been installed and NPH have also agreed with Mr Wright to add trellises to the top of the fence.

Members discussed the report and felt that Mr Wright and NPH should be able to come to an agreement and therefore the application should be deferred for further negotiation.

RESOLVED:

That the application be DEFERRED for further negotiation with NPH regarding position of 1 streetlight.

At the Chair’s invitation, the Principal Planning Officer presented the report and explained that the application had been approved by the Planning Committee on 28 July 2020 subject to conditions and a Section 106 legal agreement to secure 100% on site affordable housing. He explained that the application had been brought back to the Planning Committee as the section 106 had not been completed but that the Council was in the final stage of acquiring the property. He explained that as Council would be acquiring the apartments, the Council would have control regarding the affordable tenure of the new flats and any potential decision to dispose of the site would also rest with the Council.  In addition, he explained that once the Council owns the site, it is not possible for a s106 to be entered into.  The Principal Planning Officer concluded that the Council acquiring the ownership of the property would result in certainty that the development will be delivered in its entirety as affordable housing and highlighted an amendment to the wording of the recommendation in the Addendum to reflect that that there has been a delay in the acquisition of the application property by the Council.

Members asked a question regarding the conversion of the two upper floors and the use of cladding on the building. Helen Town from NPH responded that the design has not changed, and the artwork and plinths did count as cladding.  However, in terms of fire safety, there was a fire consultant and an external company advising on fire safety and the scheme would be fitted with alarm systems and sprinklers to a high specification.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and for the reasons set out in the report and the addendum.

At the Chair’s invitation, the Principal Planning Officer presented the application which sought permission for the change of use of the building from an education use to a mixed-use comprising offices for NPH and the base for their community learning and resident engagement programmes. He explained that the application property was Grade II listed and was in the Kingsley Conservation Area.  In addition, he explained that the application included no proposals to alter the building, car park or landscaping of the site.

Members discussed the report.

RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement and for the conditions and reasons as set out in the report.